The Price of European Indifference

Europe’s migration debate has taken a disturbing turn, propelled by a multitude of myths, manipulations, and blatant lies. The consequences will be devastating, not only for the people desperately trying to escape oppression, terror, and massacre, but also for Europe itself.

BAGHDAD – Europe’s migration debate has taken a disturbing turn.

It began with the creation of the catch-all concept (a legal freak) of a “migrant,” which obscures the difference, central to the law, between economic and political migration, between people escaping poverty and those driven from their homes by war. Unlike economic migrants, those fleeing oppression, terror, and massacre have an inalienable right to asylum, which entails an unconditional obligation by the international community to provide shelter.

Even when the distinction is acknowledged, it is often as part of another sleight of hand, an attempt to convince credulous minds that the men, women, and children who paid thousands of dollars to travel on one of the rickety boats washing up on the islands of Lampedusa or Kos are economic migrants. The reality, however, is that 80% of these people are refugees, attempting to escape despotism, terror, and religious extremism in countries like Syria, Eritrea, and Afghanistan. That is why international law requires that the cases of asylum-seekers are examined not in bulk, but one by one.

Asylum may or may not be an "inalienable" right. However, entrance to the rich countries of Europe, North America, and Asia is not. Refugees have no "right" to the welfare states and economic prosperity of the richest nations on earth. If they have any "inalienable" rights at all, it is to refuge in their own part of the world... Which is exactly what they don't want. Why? Because they aren't really refugees at all. They are (like or not) economic migrants using the smokescreen of asylum to break down Europe's control over its borders.

So far there are some 4 million real refugees living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan. The economic migrants attempting to enter Europe should be sent to join them. Anyone who shows up in Europe seeking asylum should be immediately treated as economic migrant and ejected accordingly. If they wanted a safe haven, they would have gone to Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, etc.

Internationalism, like global mass tourism and international news media in terms of international politics, economics and cultural exchange as we know them today is only 70 years old, not long established enough for institutions, public political attitudes, academia, to be reliably committed and with sufficient understanding and able to handle nationalism and regionalism with confidence. The greatest risk is that the failing internationalism of Europe has a ripple effect throughout the world and sets back internationalism in all other regions too? Europe has a global responsibility that BH Levy is corect to emphasise, something our politicians are not doing.

I agree to an extent. Europeans have an opportunity to use their power in the world to support the cause of internationalism and progress. However it has nothing to to do with them being European. Rather it has to do with them being citizens of the world.

BHL is overlooking the fact that the horde of migrants flowing into the EU cannot but have certain consequences economically. They are all looking for employment, when the EU is having some of the highest unemployment records it has ever seen.

Even in his native country, France, the French - who overwhelmingly accepted the Vietnamese who migrated there in the 1970s from their war torn country - have changed attitude. There is far more antipathy to the migrant rush than there is acceptance. Which is a significant alteration in feelings - largely due to the amassing of said migrants at Calais awaiting a moment to get through to the UK by means of the Channel Tunnel.

The EU is somewhat responsible for, at the very least, the Syrian civilians who were being massacred by the Syrian head, Assad. When France wanted to strike Syria in a big-way two years ago, it was Obama who balked. And the combined "allied" airstrikes against IS since have had some effect, but not the consequential results that were once anticipated.

Thus, it is now commonly recognized that only a land-var will eradicate IS. Foot-soldiers on the ground are clearly necessary to contend with the IS religious mercenaries and their barbaric methods.

But, which European countries are up to that depth of involvement? (It is doubtful the Germans would contribute combat troops.) Not even in Libya were ground troops employed. Will Turkey take on the brunt of the fighting as most hope? Are the Turkish up to doing so, given that many feel that their real nemesis are the Kurds.

Let us be thankful the Middle East is so far from Australia. Refugees - such as those who have reached Europe - who seek mercy and shelter here, are promptly dispatched to and locked up on regional islands and forgotten. Bernard-Henri's comparative figures are somehow lost on the Australian government which thinks every refugee in the world has come to Australia.

Qui est ce quignol qui pretend faire la morale apres avoir ete instigateur et fauteur de guerre en Libye. Vous etes tout aussi coupable mon beau Monsieur.
Who is this clown who pretend to tutor political leaders when he himself has instigated Sarkozy to wage war on Libya and destroy it. You are as culprit as them.

The West invented the humanist principles cited in this article. They hardly apply to the conduct of non-western nations, including semi-Asiatic Russia, where so-called human rights are unknown. They were largely agreed upon as standards for conduct by Western nations between themselves, not necessarily applicable without qualification to non-Western regions. The main dilemma is that these 'refugees' are collateral damage in conflicts and economic mismanagement in tribal Middle East and Africa. The Western nations are being 'played' and pressured by their presumed duty to take in anyone from anywhere if some form of persecution is claimed. This is madness. And there is no obligation to undermine the social cohesion of Western nations by introducing what will be millions more (thanks to Merkel) migrants into the lower class areas of western cities with likely chaos, conflict, and elevated welfare payments. Surely the comfortable elite (including this author) never live in or have to accommodate to alien influx that undermines what little cohesion the lower class members of western society now enjoy. The Trojan Horse was welcomed in Troy. You would think that would serve as a cautionary example.

This man gets a bit of a philosopher. What has he wrote so he may be catalogued to be so? What's more, he is a renowned activist who has been responsible for multiple Western intellectual interventions that have generated only war, thousand of death, famine and large-scale geopolitical disorder. Many of these refugees are the consequence of his political activities. Therefore, it is laughable that he now comes to speak of errors in europe. The main culprit is himself. And it is a mistake that this horrible man has a place to take the floor on this place.

.
Having spent the last 18 years, here in the USA, being poisoned by a stalker gang, without being able to interest either the police or government, I fear or hope to be requesting asylum from somewhere.
.

While I agree with almost all of the astute observations M. Levy makes, I think we need to look further back into the colonialist and interventionist history of the foreign countries that are the primary causes of the current turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and the consequent mass exodus of refugees. Many of the MENA countries were created whole cloth by foreign powers. The oppressive regimes they established and continue to support have not only failed to provide their indigenous populations the basic necessities of life but deny them to this day their fundamental civil, political and human rights. They have now trapped these same powerless and destitute populations in the cross fire of the conflagration between themselves and barbaric militias like ISIL. Given the insistence on the use of military force by the nation states involved, they have created a pipeline of recruits to ISIL that is growing rather than receding despite constant attacks and bombardments. There is only one near term solution that comes to mind, and it is a rather straightforward and easily implementable technological one. Divert the money that is being wasted on the use of force and devise a "ledger technology" software like Bitcoin to guarantee and electronically transfer to the destitute populations in the region a guaranteed universal basic income on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. By using "ledger technology," there will be no need to exchange these payments for local currencies or even to output them into any hand held medium of exchange. There will be no intermediaries siphoning off the payments. All that individual recipients will need in order to receive and spend their payments is a smartphone and a subscription that can easily be financed through the funds diverted from the billions being spent on counterproductive military operations. Recipients buy what they need and make online payments directly to the providers of the goods/services they purchase. This will provide destitute recipients the means to stay where they are in their home communities countries (or less dangerous neighboring communities and countries) and the "buying power" they need to jump start their local economies. Most importantly, recipients will eventually be able to translate their buying power into the political and economic power they need to transform failed states into functioning states and failed economies into those that create jobs and new businesses for people like themselves. No "foreign aid" or government bureaucracies need be involved. The high tech industry has a rich supply of the talent needed to implement my proposal already exists. They can create the software and online payments/transaction technologies in short order to make it unnecessary for desperate refugees and their families to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean. The whole plan can be financed by defunding counterproductive bombers, drones, etc., that are now turning the region into an uninhabitable wasteland. We owe it to Syrian refugees Aylan Kurdi, his brother, Galip, and their mother, Rehen who lost their lives last week when they drowned off the coast of Turkey trying to reach Europe, and all those who lost their lives before they did and all those who will lose their lives in the future if we do not invent an immediate out-of-the-box solution to this colossal human tragedy.

Ask yourself how this mess was created before developing an answer. to this crisis You might want to start with Islam itself as a hateful divisive meme but putting ideology aside consider, more practically, 2 countries that were the starting points, Iraq then Syria. With Iraq, Obama failed to negotiate an agreement to leave a stabilizing force. With Sadaam's former generals pushed out of power by the Maliki government the Sunni forces rose to take back power and ISIS was born. Second, in Syria, Obama's failure failure to enforce the red line emboldened Assad's forces and fueled the growth of the Sunni-Shia divide and furthered the growth of ISIS. (and for those who want to blame George Bush, remember that Bush succeeded in stabilizing Iraq as a nascent functioning democracy). Obama's policy of retrenchment and appeasement therefore lost the gains in Iraq, failed to stop Assad in Syria and, since nature abhors a vacuum, the chaos that followed was predictable (and in fact was predicted by Bush).
The beginning of a solution then is to reverse the Obama foreign policy of diplomatic and military half-measures.
Until America has a new President to lead the world the chaos will only grow.

All true, of course. But the plausibility of the argument assumes, in part, a framework of Europe's actually having a "humanistic" patrimony of values. Is that the case? Perhaps it's only some Europeans having that background or historical framework? And not always the same Europeans?

Firstly in defence of Mr. Levy, philosophers as far as I know do not affect policy unless they are in government and at the time many supported some form of action in Libya as they do against ISIS and Assad. I think he made an error of judgment but I would not call him a war criminal nor rubbish what he has to say here. Indeed in many of his works he has shown himself to be an astute observer of humans and politics. Here Europe has an obligation due to its colonial past and its recent actions in the Middle East, but mostly because Europeans, not all, are humanitarian at heart. The refugees who left war torn countries are genuine refugees - that they had money or means to get out should not provoke us to think they are just "economic" refugees - in the period leading up to the Holocaust thousands of Jews escaped using money - they sold everything. So if a mechanic in Iraq sells a BMW to leave Turkey, it is similar to the Jews migrating further away from Germany, first France, then Portugal or Spain. They travelled on foot too. The similarities are compelling, as is the near genocidal temper of the despots and ISIS. Germany has shown itself to take the lead in accepting refugees - it has one of the highest citizen to refugee ratios in the world - some might argue it is because of their history - yes and no. It is also true that the Arab League, particularly the Gulf States have shown themselves to be poor in refugee acceptance. There are around 580,000 refugees in Germany and only 600 in Saudi Arabia. The Levant states have shown great kindness despite having small populations - and Turkey has been generous. I totally agree with Mr. Levy's point below:

Europe, harassed by its xenophobes and consumed by self-doubt, has turned its back on its values. Indeed, it has forgotten what it is. The bell tolls not only for the migrants, but also for a Europe whose humanistic patrimony is crumbling before our very eyes.

The EU is on a dangerous course now, there are several countries on the verge of leaving because of the ECB austerity measures, others like the UK who are tired of the EU regulations that affect national sovereignty - and here the pressure on the "New" European members that feel the breath of the right-wing on their necks. It is a powder keg. Something needs to be done to help the refugees and to restore peace in the Middle East.

What Mr Bernard is stating is correct but he did not say that the main problem in the Middle East is due to the Turkish system applied during hundred years and the Britsh and French colonist who did not guide people to the right way instead they installed oligarcas and dictators controlling the countries to feel there own interest as actualy in Syria

Would they have risen up in violent rebellion if there had not been an understanding that Western countries would support the rebels?

The West is less responsible for the situation in Syria than Putin might claim, but I think it is intellectually and historically dishonest to sweep our role under the rug just because we are not presently bombing that specific regime.

_____________________

The disgusting rumours that the refugees come as part of a secret plot, a religiously motivated demographic invasion to be specific, bothers me to no end. Surely many of them bring a diversity of cultural practices, but the process of self selection implies that the ones who are MOST comfortable with European values are the ones coming to Europe, and efforts to paint it as an ISIS-motivated plot (I have read this rumour dozens of times in recent days on various comment boards) are inhuman fearmongering designed to undermine the basic right to asylum of those fleeing the war.

_____________________

Protect our culture by undermining all the values we claim to stand for. What a load of hogwash. When push comes to shove, will the West reveal itself as the hypocrites that every enemy claims us to be?

So for you without Ghadafi is better that the current situation. Islam has to produce its own aggiornamento but in the blame game BHL has a huge responsability and that's simply the true to say that because in the mainstream media espacially in France where I was born and raised, virtually nobody is putting BHL in a position where he has to recognize its very very own mistakes and it's responsability in the current mess. So far I diddn't hear him telling that's he is gonna provide shelter for some Syrian or Lybian families...

Action in Libya in 2011 by its continuation lead to disaster in Libya after 2011 , in Mali and arguably, in Syria and Ukraine.
It was continued action in Libya discredited Responability to Protect was discredited , contributing to inaction in Syria thought former UN secretary Kofi Anan. Mr Levy was an outspoken advocate of action in Libya in 2011. He was heard by French politics.
Was he listened to or was he used as an excuse? Why the continued action in Libya which turned out to be so disastrous? Could Mr Levy himself have involuntary have contributed to what he calls the crumbling of the 'humanistic patrimony' of Europe?

On the 28 of October of every year, the Greeks celebrate “OXI” day. In today’s times, the following five “OXI” could be the order of the day:
“OXI” to irresponsible, ignorant, greedy, selfish and immature leaders;
“OXI” to illiterate, ignorant voters;
“OXI” to people living in shelters, settlements, camps, etc. (In inhuman conditions);
“OXI” to all type of wars (albeit financial, geographical, social, etc.);
“OXI” to discrimination in all its forms (albeit, race, colour, gender, religion, etc.).
The migration crisis was not created by today’s migrants / refugees and therefore they cannot and must not be blamed for it. When people were demonstrating against wars, interference in the affairs of other countries, their representatives ignored their plight and the price is being paid today and shall be paid for generations to come. So who is the culprit, the migrants / refugees, the generation of the selfies or the establishment?

I think this article is wrong in many levels. It says Turkey isn't a european country, the migrants are mostly refugees etc. He asserts that the 'migrants' love our way of life (!!!) yet we see people refusing aid because it's from the res cross!
I find it intriguing why no one questions Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and the Gulf States for not receiving any fugees.
Then there's this paragraph... We all know this makes very very sense and it's happening before our eyes.
I guess we're just paying for the results of this 'New Philosopy'

It is perfectly sensible that moderates will not want to go to Saudi, etc. Observe that more moderate neighbours such as Lebanon and Jordan are hosting extraordinarily high numbers of refugees, as pointed out in the article.

This link to article from Washington Post:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/?tid=pm_world_pop_b

definitely sheds a better light on the real situation rather than a pathetic emotionally based throwing of blame at Europe.
The present inundation of how many thousands(???) into separate inland countries in Europe is a conflict of preferred choice of people using illegal means and methods of opportunity VS. legal and lawful populations and societies. How can any one country process a few hundred thousand people overnite peacefully? It is an impossible demand.
Presently the "demand" is showing exactly the ugly truth that it is.

Accepting refugees is one issue. An invasion demanding accommodation is an invasion of opportunists, not refugees fleeing. The whining unfortunately has many levels, but it is whining from a "state"view. The state has to look at what condition the state is in very hard, and cold. The countries being affected need to be extremely cautious in maintaining their own internal social stability, or these invaded countries themselves will leave themselves totally vulnerable to exterior military invasion. Actually the vulnerability could be further social instability internally because of overburdened governmental infrastructure.
It's not a pretty situation. There are limits to giving aid, if in the process you destroy yourself. Caregiving has limits.
At this point evaluating security from crisis management principle need to be seriously invoked. Playing on readers personal empathy, and concern is more disruptive and destructive . It's a lot easier to make that kind of play, which is easy to get reactive responses, such as what Levy has done,

I wouldn't close my door to helping someone knocking on my door. But, if a gang pushes my door down, I will definitely defend my self, my family and my house.

Maybe Levy has his nice little condo in Dubai with all the little slaves available to do his bidding, and obey his command. He sure ain't gonna get that kind of treatment much longer anywhere in Europe, maybe Switzerland for a while. Unfortunately, there are no inalienable rights anywhere on earth.
Alien rights are given by the state(s), possibly as decided by reasonably wise citizens of a state(s).
The real issue is the "Price of Arabic Indifference".

I'm still optimistic that Europe, acting collectively, will find a constructive, practical and humane response to the crisis. Whether it does that or not, I think that one day the crisis will be seen as a turning point in the history of the European Union.

The U.S. has its own immigration problem, with 11 million primarily economic refugees living here now. For all that, the society still functions (in some ways actually benefiting from the new arrivals!), even as the arguments rage about what should be done about them.

Mr. Carpenter:
That's very true. The present situation is extending chaos to many other countries. Basic crisis management issues are beyond a level four and jeopardizing stability for many European, and perhaps other citizens even in the US.

Here is link to:http://www.resettlement.eu/page/syrian-refugee-situation, which seems to be a reliable source for
some of the "numbers" of the crisis. What I see is that the "inhouse" programs of surrounding countries is minimal. Should it be more? Should it be better? I am not the person to make that judgment, their leadership makes those decisions based on available options to share with incoming people who are perhaps more unfortunate than within those countries boundaries. Do I think the present exodus is a situation that should be forced on European countries? No I do not. The European countries have been "giving" to the limits of their abilities also, if not more so. The citizens of the European countries are themselves becoming overwhelmed with the plight of others, when the present citizens within the European boundaries are themselves facing difficulties for survival. Can they realistically increase their burden of responsibilities and commitments to their own present citizens? Again, I am not the one to judge. That takes response from internal citizenship and leadership. I do think that the present inundation of humanity to upper Europe is a mass desire that does not need to necessarily be reciprocated within those European countries. There are other Arabic nations that are extremely wealthy that can and should stand up for their own committed principles and belief systems before European citizens, including recent displaced persons that have already been accepted into the European boundaries. There are limits of support that have to be acknowledged. Yes, people can desire to be relocated to England, Germany etc. However, if those countries are struggling to process recent refugees and poverty and social discontent within their own boundaries, then refugees have to acknowledge that they need to be processed and accepted somewhere else. I think a good place to start would be Dubai.

For most of us in the West Ms. Pula, it takes an act of imagination to put ourselves in a refugee's shoes. Some of us have it, some of us don't. The biggest problem you and I faced today probably seems pretty lame when compared to the one faced by a mother and father in the process of walking out of Syria with two children and a suitcase.

The "migrant" problem is not Europe's problem. The "migrant" problem is an internal Muslim and Arabic national problem. The Muslims and Arabic nations need to assume responsibility for their problems. The problem is being ignored by the nations of the African continent, and Middle Eastern surrounding nations. Why should Europeans have to deal with problems that Muslim nations could care less about. "It is not an imaginary assault". Europe is being assaulted enmasse whether planned, or a secondary result of infighting within Arabic countries. This is an Arabic and Muslim problem. Europe is being forced to assume the role of co-dependent caretaker because Arabic countries and nations could care less about human beings within their own national boundaries. Charity begins at home. Arab countries are just publicly revealing that there is no charity within Arabic countries. Why should Europeans need to support citizens from Arabic nations that are not willing to give minimal support within their own boundaries to their own people? Arabs are not supporting themselves. Why should Europeans be forced to take care of them?

Refugee crisis is a direct result of destruction of many countries by Trotskyite Empire/NATO and puppets like ISIS. Double-win for the Empire: nice independent countries are destroyed, plus refugees weaken traditional societies in Europe, making them Cosmopolitan, turning people into sheeple. Levy is rubbing his palms.

This is simply not factual. Jordan and Lebanon, for example, are all supporting very large numbers of refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria and have been for a long time. Relative to their resources, I think you can make a sound argument that they have been bearing more than their share of the burden.

The great challenge we all face, in Europe, in Asia, in the U.S. -- is to find a constructive response to what is a global problem. Europe has led the way against such challenges in the past, and perhaps it will in this case also. In many respects, the future of Europe depends on it.

I don't think that Europe is displaying any type of united selfishness. The number of asylum-seekers has been and presently is more than 40,000. Why don't the Syrians flee to Arab Nations that are much closer? Why don't Arab nations establish options to accept asylum-seekrs from Syria? Look at an international map. Central Europe is pretty far away from Syria. Why doesn't Dubai and other closer Arabic countries open their gates and welcome their fellow tormented Arabic, and Muslim populations? Why aren't there political leaders clamoring to welcome and support these poor tormented souls? The Europeans sure aren't the barbarians in the present deluge of humanity choosing to travel to Europe. Why aren't they escaping into the welcoming arms of the countries that are much closer to their home shores, lifestyle, religious beliefs, and historical heritage? Why aren't the Arabic countries publicizing and promoting their countries very close to Syria's borders as primary destinations of choice?

If one reads well what could be perceived as the ultimate ulterior motive behind this influx of migrants, it could very well be the Merkel/Junker plan to get back at the EU electorates by injecting over One million cheap labour / loyal voters in time for the up-coming German/EU elections.

I'm enjoying the commentaries more than the article, espercially the latter part of J Von Hettligen's argument. Courtesy Bernard Levy and Nicholas Sarkozy, Libya is now a pile of rubbish with thousands of refugees storming Europe.. Always a pleasure reading your insightful commentaries @JVH

Sweden has taken in more Iraqis than USA and Canada combined. USA has 40 times the population and created the refugee crisis to begin with. All Iraqi, Syrian, and Afghan refugees should get air travel to Texas, it has oil, deserts, and apartheid. Plus the average Texan could not tell the difference between an Arab or a Mexican.

The migrant crisis is leading to growing awareness that we simply do not have the structures needed to deal effectively with problems which go beyond national or federal borders. The present chaos is not going to be sorted out without those structures. We could pretend that Syria's problems, for instance, were theirs not ours, as if we had nothing to do with them. But when Syria's problems begin to impinge on us the way they are doing now, we begin to wonder why we have no answers. The brutal fact is: we have no answers and never will have unless we are prepared to do some really radical thinking and acting - not demonstrations and placards but real change. This will be most uncomfortable but it is the only way out of the comfortless wilderness we have been so busily, selfishly and mindlessly creating ever since we failed to notice that our UN has, since its birth, lacked the tools it needed to deliver its primary goal: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" . See my website http:www.garrettjones.talktalk.net

Excerpt from the article:
''Instead of simply sealing themselves off, affluent countries should be giving much more support to less affluent countries that are supporting large numbers of refugees: Lebanon, Jordan, Ethiopia, and Pakistan are obvious examples. Refugees living securely in countries that border their own are less likely to attempt hazardous journeys to remote regions and more likely to return home once a conflict is resolved. International support for countries bearing the greatest refugee burden also makes economic sense: it costs Jordan about €3,000 ($3,350) to support one refugee for a year; in Germany, the cost is at least €12,000.''

I seriously doubt the 80% of refugee data, although I cannot prove it. And I seriously question the will of those migrants to integrate and their "love for our promised land". Most of them have no clue of our different languages, uses and customs, history and traditions. Most of them have the idillic idea of Europe as a continent where iPhones hang down from trees and where they will easily find a job that is too low paid for us but will give them a shelter and the opportunity to send some money home and go back to their own country in 10 years time as rich men. I don't understand why so many people are so "philosophical" about the current migration issue and don't openly admit it's a huge tragedy. I wish all of the supporters of an open Europe welcomed one refugee in his house, then surely the problem would be solved.

Monsieur Levy was well intentioned in arguing for Western intervention in the Middle East. However he does not seem to have thought of the consequences. His track record as a foreign policy commentator is less than stellar, yet he still has not learned that a bit of humility goes a long way.

Bernard-Henri Lévy is not alone to urge for more help from European leaders and their citizens to share the burden of this massive influx of refugees, whose scale has taken them by surprise. For years they have focused mainly on the single currency, and now many contemplate a revision of the Schengen agreement, putting an end to this borderless travel in the area.
The current crisis is Europe's biggest since World War II. Yet it is nothing compared to the challenges facing other countries in the Middle East - Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. The apocalyptic outcomes of the civil war in Syria have hurt its neighbours, which have few resoruces to help them cope with millions, who seek shelter. With so many people trying to reach the Europe, the Dublin regulation is creaking at the seams, laying bare the limits of cooperation among EU countries, that have so many differing asylum and immigration policies. Countries that bear the brunt of new waves of migration, such as Italy, Bulgaria or Greece, find little solidarity from their richer neighbours. The EU has been criticised for spending far more on surveillance and deterrence than on accomodating the arrivals.
Even though many leaders see an overwhelming moral imperative to act, there are multiple reasons why they are struggling to come up with viable solutions. Xenophobia is on the rise in many countries, often fuelled by economic discontent and fear of losing control. Yet there is no silver bullet for the crisis. For the moment it requires immediate measures to support countries that are struggling to deal with asylum claims. Other goals, like repatriating failed asylum seekers, putting human traffickers out of business, and focusing on development issues in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, are long term projects. Angela Merkel is facing the biggest challenge of her decade in power, with political risk for her beliefs.
It's cynical of Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to put the blame on the West for bombing Arab countries and creating this refugee crisis. In fact, Russia is to blame for propping up the Assad regime, which has slaughtered more than a quarter of a million people in the past four years.
Lévy says that Syria provides for the main source of refugees , because "the international community has refused to conduct the kinds of military operations required by the “responsibility to protect”, even though international law demands intervention". He also points out that due to our inaction in Eritrea, refugees flee in droves. Indeed, Lévy was the one, who persuaded France's then president, Nicolas Sarkozy to bomb Libya and to prevent its despot, Muammar Gaddafi from killing his own people. Britain and France were the most active NATO members that flew sorties over Libya. See what has happened to Libya since the death of Gaddafi! It's today a land of anarchy with two rival guovernments, and a hub for human trafficking activities!

I hate to sound prejudiced, but something does not look right about this migration crisis. The world has seen many wars and conflicts but never migration of this magnitude and why suddenly now. The Middle East and part of Asia have been unstable for many years and North Africa since 2012? Something does not look right. Furthermore, trying to integrate this type of migration into societies that speak 28+ languages and belong to a large variety of faiths and have different cultures and mind sets, is “mission impossible” and can only create more conflicts, more crime and will widen the gap between communities and the populous at large. The EU and the US must execute a plan to stabilise the originator countries and re-patriate the migrants to their countries. The sooner this is done the better it is for everyone.

You mean African name. Obama is the first black US President but he may be the last one as well. Europe is not the US, Europe is dysfunctional and the majority of the US citizens can trace their roots to either Africa or Europe and recently to Latin America. Today’s influx of migrants appears to have been engineered and facilitated rather than being reactionary.

Mission impossible? The US is living proof that cultural integration is a possibility. By the way, in case you haven't heard, the president of the US is a black man - I am quite serious - with an Arab name - Barrack Hussein Obama.

Does it reminds of historical parellel between Romans overwhelmed by present Europeans' ancestors from several invading armies of migrant populations and present scenario? the present migrants have their dispacement from their original bodes of habitation due to attack on their governments causing civil strife by the European powers in combination with others as has happened with roman armed intervention with other neighborhoods and became victim of its own follies due to its inability to democratise the institutions in time.

We need to build societies on such higher moral fabric that satisfies the natural inclinations of persons in societies to protect the weak and sibling.It now behaves with global social life without outraging the moral sentiment of global social order.

Europe with diverse national social lives and conflicting economic interests under one umbrella of European history is definitely a higher social,economic and political order as was in Roman city empire has to work in the positive direction of global social life through strenghened democratic UN to absorb and assimilate all migrant population to contribute to the productive social life than destructive elements.

I agree with you.
We seem to be witnessing the fall of our civilization all over the world.
It is not only the migrant crisis, but a crisis that includes all human activities from economy, financial institutions to science, education, social fabric, geopolitical issues, environmental issues, culture and so on.

And we are completely unprepared, we are still dreaming that our artificial, foundation less, empty human bubble is perfect and can survive, we can still kick the can and continue with our "virtual solutions".
We resemble someone who stands on a small, shallow island with a single umbrella feeling prepared and confident while a huge tsunami is coming.

Unless we start taking our situation seriously, and start searching for real reasons, accepting our responsibility for everything that is happening and consent to the fundamental changes we have to make to adapt to the world around us a very unpredictable and volatile transitional period is coming until a new civilization is going to be built.

Ellis Island indeed was salvation for millions fleeing meltdown in Europe in previous centuries.
The Marshall Plan enabled Europe to rebuild post 1945.
But now Europe has the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank et al.
In other words fully equipped to forge a solution on its own - without the Anglosphere.
Evolution of capacity to handle multiple predicaments still appears bereft of creative maturity.
Problems are opportunities.
To craft the New narrative Europe needs - as a Pillar of World Economics, like China Russia India etc
Millions in Europe have the highest hopes from the Union, millions suffering their highest pain levels.
Millions looking for strengths in the Union to build upon.
Their voices is where the answers will come from - their needs are the Demand engines that Europe needs.
Problems always the source of opportunities - unfortunately Europe is not an Island, it is a continent.
Britain and Australia are Islands - Europe needs to craft a different template.
DeGaulle in 1971 forced America to pivot to The Pacific and build APEC Economics.
Exporting Europeans to The Anglosphere no longer an option.
So Europe has to create the narrative to stand alone or build ClubMed Economics.
Or choose the option of building Red Economics with the Russians.
Or with Africa and the Middle East.
Sitting on the fence perhaps not an option - if Europe wants Great Power status.

Mr. Levy argues the price of European indifference on moral grounds while ignoring the practical problems posed by mass immigration and the Open Europe policies. How much support for immigrants should be expected as a practical matter from a country like Greece or Spain?

Clearly, a solution is needed that addresses both the ethical and the practical dimensions of the issue.

Finding such a solution will, it seems to me, require the collective efforts of a unified Europe. And in that regard, the "immigration crises" ought to be seen as a great opportunity. Here is an issue that can be used to demonstrate, in a powerful way, the virtue and practical value of a commitment to European union.

Meanwhile, it does seems interesting to note that President Putin's Russia, for all its vastness, doesn't appear to be regarded as a destination for refugees of either the economic or the political sort. Worth a footnote to the crisis?

that play a legitimate role in setting that price for many "indigenous" Europeans. And what is clearly needed is an approach to the problem that addresses both the ethical and the practical.
minds of many Europeans.

ing" the matter.
framing the attitudes of many Europeans. What Europe requires, clearly, is a unified approach to immigration that addresses both the moral and the practical dimensions of the problem.

Are you suggesting that Europe can find a solution to the immigration crisis _without_ addressing its practical aspects? That the problem will go away if enough of the rest of us keep our seats on our little patch of moral high ground and insist that Greece, for example, "do the right thing?"

It is possible isn't it, to be pragmatic without being defensive? The normative view of "what ought to be" is certainly valuable -- but sooner or later it will inevitably runs into the problem of what's possible.

The problem with invoking the 'practical challenges' defense it that it makes anything defensible. To take it to the extreme - it could be argued that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were merely a practical solution to a political problem.

The issue is that of conservatism versus progression. You have large constituencies that are fighting for a return to past glories, to a reduction of human activity and protection of what is rather than change. This might align to demographics and become more entrenched as the population of Europe ages.

These ideals dominate thought processes over all and will not accept other narratives. The rejection of statistics over ad hoc instances is evidence of this holding to beliefs. The barriers that are built cause migrants to try all the hard to get across and stay put paradoxically.

These conservative thoughts are also empowered by media selling stories over perceived threats. Scare stories sell more than empathic stories of the nightmares of war that those making the journey have had to face.

Then there is the complicity of our governments in some of the issues. The fact that European actions have done little to improve the situation in Syria, Eritrea and elsewhere. That we should take a more active role preferably diplomatically and economically but also militarily if necessary to restore peace and stability to these regions (and do not take that to mean full invasion necessarily). And the limitations to do this are both domestic politics and international as the mishmash of conflicting alliances preventing coherent solutions.

Labour in 1997 promised an ethical foreign policy but I have never seen one from any government - we need one now not just from UK and all of Europe.

A lot of places still today suffer from the after effects of the 'counterinsurgency' efforts of the US and USSR during the cold war. Which was piled on top of what came before that - colonialism by Europe countries.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.